Kate Daley, right, of Smart Growth Waterloo Region is urging residents to get involved with the OMB review. Hills development near Wilmot Line.

Drawing a line at the countryside

By James JacksonChronicle Staff

The Region of Waterloo is quickly gaining support in its fight to reverse a provincial tribunal’s decision to open up more land for development than the region’s Official Plan would allow.

On April 5 local residents launched the website Smart Growth Waterloo Region to raise awareness of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board and to encourage citizens to speak out against the ruling.

Last Friday, the provincial government confirmed it would support the region in its Divisional Court case to review and reverse the OMBs decision to open more than 1,000 hectares of land to new development. The region’s official plan called for just 85 hectares of new land to be made available, but developers appealed to the OMB.

“The amount of community response to this decision has been great,” said Rob Horne, regional commissioner of planning. “There’s been a lot of feedback and discussion. I’m heartened that the community is engaged in looking at what it’s future is going to be.”

That includes the new website.

“We created the site to help raise the awareness, and we need (the public) to speak up and tell the elected officials what sort of future they want,” said Kevin Thomason, a co-founder of the Smart Growth Waterloo Region website.

The OMB hears a wide range of municipal planning applications and appeals, including official plans, zoning bylaws, subdivision plans and aggregate resources, among others.

The board denied the region’s request to re-hear the case last month, prompting the court date some time in May.

The region’s official plan, adopted in 2010, focuses on compact development and increased density. Half of all new development is set to occur in already built-up areas, said Horne, a major shift from development practices of the past half-century.

“We’re really not seeing the same patterns of development that we saw in the past where we saw more greenfield developments and single-family homes,” he said.

Planners expect the population of Waterloo Region to increase by nearly 40 per cent over the next two decades, from 543,700 to about 730,000 by 2031. Waterloo’s growth plan is among the most assertive strategies in the province to curb urban sprawl, and developers and municipalities across Ontario will be keeping a close eye on what happens in Waterloo.

The region’s plan includes urban neighbourhoods located along the central transit corridor offered by the incoming $881-million light rail transit and rapid bus project, combined with high-density and mixed-use developments.

The official plan was established using the provincial Places to Grow act as a guide. That legislation, passed in 2006, provides a framework for the Ontario government to coordinate planning and decision-making for long-term growth and infrastructure renewal in the province.

The Golden Horseshoe area of Ontario was the first region targeted under the act, and called for compact and complete communities that protected, conserved, enhanced and made wise use of the land, air and water.

Focusing on intensification, transit-supported communities and reducing dependence on automobiles were all key components of the act.

The region’s official plan is also a critical guiding document for many of the region’s other management strategies. The transportation master plan and the regional growth management strategy are just a couple of those plans that could be in jeopardy should the OMBs ruling hold up.

“Locally, the regional official plan is the backbone of a lot of crucial planning for the future of our region,” said another Smart Growth Waterloo Region co-founder, Kate Daley. “All of these different efforts that help us grow into the community that we want to become.”

Opponents of the OMB ruling also say the plan puts Waterloo Region’s remaining farmland and environmentally sensitive areas in jeopardy.

“We see no need to take an equivalent of 26 typical farms and convert that to development land. The additional pushing out (will put) pressure on primary agriculture lands and the groundwater recharge areas,” said Horne.

Perhaps most troubling for opponents of the OMB ruling is the way the verdict could be interpreted across the rest of the province.

“Beyond our own region, the precedence set in the ruling will be very damaging for other municipalities and other communities across Ontario when it comes to gutting the density provisions in the growth plan,” said Daley.

“I would agree,” added Horne. “I think that’s why the province has agreed to be an active partner in Divisional Court.”

While they wait for the court date, organizers of the Smart Growth Waterloo Region website hope to engage and inform citizens, who will then pressure their members of provincial parliament to not stand idly by the OMBs ruling.

For more information about Smart Growth Waterloo Region and how to get involved, visit www.smartgrowthwaterloo.ca.

6 Responses to “Drawing a line at the countryside”

[...] http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/drawing-a-line-at-the-countryside/http://smartgrowthwaterloo.ca/whats-going-on/ “After a great deal of public consultation, the Region of Waterloo approved its Official Plan (OP) in 2009. This plan, in keeping with provincial policy, seeks to limit the amount of farmland consumed by development and instead encourage intensification of urban areas. Part of this plan includes a fixed Countryside Line, separating urban and rural land uses. A group of private developers appealed the OP to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which ruled against the Region in January 2013. If this ruling should stand, the Region will be required to permit 11 times as much undeveloped land to be developed than what it had determined to be necessary in its Official Plan. This decision undermines the ability of our elected municipal governments to determine the nature of local growth and protect our countryside. [The] Region of Waterloo… is appealing to divisional court and requesting a rehearing from the OMB. Find out how you can support the Region in defending our future growth plans.” [...]

Just remember that EVERY person who supports a policy of zero (or nearly zero) expansion as perscribed by the Region AND who lives in a detached single family home is a HPOCRITE for not practicing what they preach! This includes most regional councillors, and many of the high level regional staffers who introduced this policy.. Including the author of the places to grow act hmself who lives in a detached single family home in Waterloo. If there was no interest for people to buy these types of homes, there would be no business interest in building them. If you want to “fix” urban sprawl, then you need to convince people that living in small urban condos with little green space is a better way of life. This is a classic example where everyone has a sense of entitlement on the type of home they live in while believing that others should not. Good luck with that!

Its quite interesting to see that 60% disagree with this comment yet there is not a single explanation of how someone who lives in a single detached home and supports a policy that prohibits others from doing the same can be anything but two faced.

It seems like this issue is just like power plants, biowaste dewatering plants, and any other municipal issue where we thing the ‘other guy’ should practice what ‘we preach’ but we are not willing to do it ourselves.

The solution to curb urban sprawl is not to put up ‘fake barriers’ to development. People just end up developing more land in places like Baden and eventually it will grow into Kitchener anyway..anyone remember where Bridgeport is???? The solution to promote densification is to create affordable inner city homes that few would even want to purchase detached housing..But admittedly this is NOT an easy task.

Humans accept that life is paradoxical (which is acceptable) but we condemn hypocrisy (which is unacceptable). Which is it, Concerned_in_Waterloo?
Some urban folks want to make farm land off-limits to developers because they want to protect farmland from bulldozers. But farmers want to sell their land to the highest bidder. But why should farmers have to retire into poverty? Which is it?
Housing construction can be a major economic force in every community and everyone wants that, especially in an economy like the current one. But what if housing development destroys our aquifers or reduces our access to local produce? Which is it?

My problem with such issues is that those who make the decisions about such things have never had a full and honest discussion with the public. We have allowed “experts” to dictate our future. Did you get an invitation to a local discussion about Places to Grow? Me, either. Do you think the public really had a chance to say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to the LRT? Me, either.

If you care about such things, the only option is to elect politicians who truly care about transparency and community decision-making. We need to elect politicians who know about, care about and are prepared to work hard about, serious issues that will affect our children and grand children.

@SteveLindt
I appreciate your viewpoint. Solving these paradoxes however requires more ‘intelligence’ than simply laying in front of bulldozers. The problem with inertia winning in a physical sense is that inertia tends to go out of control and eventually the motor explodes! This is why machines usually have a governor or breaking system built into them!

Inertia in this case is the ‘green movement’ which does have some merit, but does not provide the explanation on how to “solve the problem”. Simply creating an artificial boundary does not stop neighbouring communities to create development on their own when the economic benefit suits them. Case in point..the paving of Wilmont line over the objections of Waterlooians! Another example, the increased housing activity on farmland in Baden because Waterloo created an artificial boundary driving up land prices.

Ultimately the problem is that this city seems to want to grow, but we really don’t want to let it grow. We invite people to come to our schools, workplaces and institutions as long as thy dont consume any of “our valuable”land. If you can convince those people to live in high rise condos with gymnasiums instead of green areas..good luck with that.. But ultimately that way of thinking does NOT build a happier more productive community. People are ESCAPING Toronto come here to get away from that, and all we want to do is emulate it
.

As home owner I support lower taxation. Reducing sprawl reduces the need for infrastructures that raise taxes. If developer fees actually covered the cost of creating and maintaining a subdivision we wouldn’t have this fight. The places to grow act also benefits seniors who are leaving the single dwelling market. As they sell these detached homes and head to the condo life they enjoy a much higher resale on their home as intensification drives up housing prices. Given these facts it isn’t hard to see why ‘the places to grow’ act receives so much support. Young families looking for affordable housing need to be more involved with politics but they are too busy trying to feed their babies. The electorate in general is quite apathetic to their own interests and this is the result. The real issue isn’t urban sprawl it is this idea that we need to grow. Growth for the sake of growth is called cancer. Discouraging growth would reduce the pressure on housing and the already stressed resources like water. Reduce the growth targets and we reduce the pressure on house prices and affordability. Sadly no one seems to understand this even though any third grade child could do this math. Be angry for the right reasons.